IL

BD 122.384

AUTHORTITLE

SlociNS AGENCYP08 DATE ,

NOTE'

-4.

- f.

lob*NOT moot'

95 BA 009 083

Johnson; Rudolph; Stromquist, Nally P.Participatory Educational Planning: Report of a Field

--.\Experiment& _. .

'National4tional Inst. of Education '(DHE14,. -Vashington, D.0 .-.--#r 76 Ilk

c5p4 Paper presented at the Annual Nesting of the'American Edtcational Rebearch kssociation (SanFrancisco, California, April 19-23,, 1976)

BIM PRICE 2F-80.83 8C-$2.06,Plus PostageDESCRIPTORS - *Advisory Committees; *Coophrative Planning;

*Educational Planning; Elementary SecondaryEducation.; Objectives; *Otganization; *ParentParticipation; Policy Formation; Problea Solving;Program Denckiptions; School Community CooperationStudent Participation; Teacher Participation

IDENTIFIERS California (PalcrAlto)1 *Collateral Organizations;Palo Alto Unified §chool District

. ABSTRACT

3

This paper is a partial report on a three-year fieldexperisitt it participatory educational planning in a suburban Schooldistrict. ft is shown that teachers, admihistratorts parents, and"students,. working voluntarily with technical support-as.a *collateral

:organization* within a district, can substantially broadatt the scopeof educational studra-nd planning available. to the board and stafffor shaping eduCational improvement. Pull reports on thii project arein preparation under a grant from the National institute ofEdtcation. The paper briefly summarizes the history of the project

t and the methods used in the study. Three topics are then treated insome detail: participatory planning with unrestricted participation;the use of open and flexible problem definition in a planning processso that all problems or topics within the school system are,dpen forconsideration; and the use of the *collateral organization* strategyas a specific sodol for .planning. (Author) P

v

A

,

*******************************************************************st,1**Doctments acquired by ERIC incltde many informal .tnpublished *

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * .

*-toiobtain the best Op! available. Nevertheless, items of aarOinal *'* reproducibility, are often encountered: ant-this ,affects the quality *_* -of Ale-microfiche-andlAardcopy reproductions ERIC akes available ** via,theERIC Dobusent Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not'* responsible for the quality of the original-document. Reproductions ** sipplied'by EMS are the best that can be made from the original. ***I********************************************************************

.

-a

4.

. .0

II

.

.1.

1

c . 4

U.S. T mENT COMEAU...gol/cAtioN WELFARENADOWALNIThtutE OF

4. EDUCATIONTHIS DOCIPAEuX NM SEEN REPRODIKED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMINC PERSON OR 4:46,00zatioNoveiG14LASING IT POINTS OF VIEWOR OPINIONSSTATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REpRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL nStTuTE0REDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

r

s

t

01.=1..

. ....*-.e 1,^-

4.

.

.

0.

A .

. .

PARTICIPATORY EDUCATIONAL PLANNING:

ItEpoiti OF A FIELD EXPERIMENT.

1 ..;.,if

I.

Rudolph Johnson end Neliy P. StromquiatPalo Alto Unified School District

slPalo; Alto, California4 V.

S.

I.

f a

40 ..

at .:i .,1 - ":Research reported in this paper is supported by the National Insti7lute, of.Education Giant No. 14E6-00-3-0178. Opinions expressedin this paper are those of the authprs, and do not.riecessarpy reprt,. ..

. P I sent the,viewpointof the National Institute of Education. Detailed'..research reports; including material not included: in this- paper, -

will be available from the Palo Alto Unified School District upon

: 1

.

..4

4,.

0

1 .1Paper piesenfed ut the AERA Annual MeetingsSan Francisco, California, April 19-23, 1976.

4 4

4.

. .

4..

I

0

.

os .

, completion of the Project.,-. 6, 2

.,,...

*

.

, ,.

INTRODUCTION

This is a partial report from a study of:a field'eliperiment w hich tested

a new model for district-wide educational plantajpg, using participatory tech- .

niques.

e* Two. terms in this introductory sentence require definition. One is

"planning"; the other is "partlalpatory, techniques". *Let,us begin tith a dis-;4,

c ussion of the. term '"planning ".

Most school districts.; unlike citierr, do not have,: planning departments.

At the same time, many activities. which may be labeled "planning" take plate

within schoolsystems. you example,, someone is responsible for projecting

enrollments and those.datit must be used to plan for the appropriateminibeis

. of teaciers, roomsi and buses: At.the same tinek,sore person or group is

Opreparing the budget at the central office level. Frequently, new,peogranis "

are being planned; perhaps in special education or vocational education. At

the heart of the edusationalOrocess, all teachers plan courses and lessons. .

It may not be useful.to grow; all of this a ctivity together under the label

4.4,

of "plan/Ong": ,Some of, it might simply be labeled "administralign".,..pther

parts might be termed Iprobiem-solving" Same of the activities are quite

routine; they are repeated on 'a regular cycle, using familiar procedures, with

littleIntent to maim. Snbstantive changes, but rather to mat ntaln the. system; in

good working_order:bylearefully examininglits working parts and making c/,

justments when necessary. Other activities of a planning nature are totally

non-routine. *r example, sehools must be built -or closed, or a new program,. .

.t., in human re.13,11bniisi to* deieloped, or two school clistricts are.to be merged.

-- I" Inaniiiii; is anon- precise term.. Frequently, the term. connotes highlyI ,

* o .rational activities!, value-free in nature, performed.Oy professionals, and. . 1

I ,.S.. 0 e

aimed at exercising some control over the future. Usually, the sub-activities,..,.. .0._ .h. t.. ...-

4

v

..

A

..-4-.....-.4"......

...

WM

" .0

.

. ..

.1-

l

include the-gathering of,data, considering alternative solutions, and reecim-

mending Or choosing solutions which are optional in terms of established- N"'.

criteria. -

,

C.

"Not infrequently,, school districts compile' a amount of data and - .future projectio,ns into a document called a "long -range plan". Some investi-Y

e.0`. gators have found that these plans ser ve a number of purposes other than Rid-

, . . .ing the course of the institution into the future. Plans may serveaa symboli, . ,...

advertisements-, games, or exercises tor interaction' (COhen and March, 1,. .1974). Some skepticism does exist about the value andpurposes of long-range

, . . , .,.. . -plans. Nevertheless, such plangaredevelopia..i .s 4. ' 0. 1

.

,

..

In. this paper; we"

are concerne with a-procesa that has led-to the level -.

epnient of a long-range plan within a sc ool district. This Processi has been .. ..unusual in that within it the school district has dealt with broad-ranging

,issues, such as teacherr4thdeigrelationships,. competency-based education,.. - . ,and numerous othernattericaeldomtakenup in the context of a long-range plan.

WheA planningprobes. below the surface of things and -raises fundamental

issues. or issues not normally, dealt with, we may say that. the organization isi

doing some "constilutional"plarining. Comitithtional planning may involve the 4 P.' examination of imetiunined.relationahips. It may deal with questions'ot legiti-:.. ....-

I%macy. For example, should the isdhool system attempt' o educate parents as

a.means toward improving the educational processfiir children? tXi- 0

Such "constitutional" work is familiar in business. Kinanufattniin..

gt -

firm may be struggling to finds new market, or attempting to decide whether, . .1

. it would be legitimate, in, terms of objectives and capabilities of the'firp, to .

move into a ne\v type of product or service. In the publiosector, we see nuns-r . 4

eroukexample tf such "constitutional - level" planning. Forexample,. should 4. ;. .

the National Park Service permit public convention. facilities to_be developed .

in Yosemite pational Park, or is that illegitimate in teims. of the emits of that. . . 'agency andipr of the agency's capabilities' ?. .?. .

. . \ ---

\

...

. :

o

., ,4

.1.

I

... ,:, -, : % .. .

/;

.w t ,- . # ....

,

v-.

r3-

IA,.

.. .. -0 .ft ....0... .1

. Constitutional -planning in education is 'rather unusual at the level of

.. .localachool districts. By complex social processes, it becomes legitimate. .

for school systems to educate five - year -olds, or to move into postcsecondary

educaticin. For, the -most part,4auch movements are statewide or nationwide,. - 0 .-

-usually controlled at tire state level. Local district's fie spond, but do not them-. .r 4

selves often probe such basil issues in a systematic *ay Thereas been a

substantial increase, however, in goal-setting and needs assessment exercises,. -.which may raisefundamental issues

The piannjng prooess to be discussed in this paper had as its intent such.

constitutional planning. the District chose-"to do this. teak by-the use of an in- '

tensive participatory process. .0 or.3.,

Just as the term "planning'' iequireocat-clatificalion, se does tae.r . term " participatory,". llansbridge (19.73) defhies "participatory- democracies"

..k

as those inwhich "decisions are made directly, face to face, bx-consensus,- .

arid with a presumption of equality among the'pembers". Participatory Meth-

ods in school systems will be defined here aathose whiCh bring parents ant.

other citizens together with teachers and achninistrators into ksmall setting

wherein they share viewpOints-and'clesigt commonly- accepted Pr6posals Such

methods have become widespread in the last decade, pattly through the imple-

mentation of federal programs (such as ESE-A, -Title jnd state programs (such.

as Early Childhood Education, the-forthcoming 7-12 grade educational, reform

programs in California, ancPconipetencrbasecl education( in Oregon)., which

mandate parental and staff participation in the design and evaluation of various .

educational programs. --

Along with the-rise in the use of partiCipa totypractices, there.has been

, an increalle.in the variety of arrangements that are used in the attempt to in-:-

crude "parental" and "staff" involvement in educational policies and decisions'.

The ,bToad guidelines of the various. federal and state programs mandating par-

ental ancksiaft participation haite led to-the adoption_of .variouslormulas,-for.

a14

fr. M. 5

./

-1

e ,

4,

It

.

.

*

1

-4--

representation, areas of decision-making, finality of the decisions Aside by(-"1-

'these parent/staff' groups, and flo on. In general, however, hese programs., Ihe centered on "immediat rrnonces, usually one academic yeir, and have .. sbeen limited to one segment of the school system (eg,, grades K73, competency-

- .,..'based education,' language arts)...

# .

This study reports on the utilization of participatory methods for the pur-

poses. .

. . , k : A

poses of long-rangeplannWg. The case we will be describing utilized commit-<

'fats that,have some resemblance to existing "district advisory committees".

Unlike these, howevef, the planning committees in the Project were coordin-

ated under a, "collateral organization" structure and were not limited to dealing.

with a specific area of the school district, The planning committees in the study

also resembled "goalrsetting" groups, but unlike these, they didnot simply

.state'gqids but.formulated proposals-specific enough to be implemented A

third difference between and thethe planning teams anthe usual policy .torms,oi l

participation was that participation was quite'unrestricted, since' anybody wish-.

ing to :become a "volunteer planner'''. could do so. Finally, planning teams were

Provided technical consultitionwhen they needed itdn order to conduct surveys

or to do other work,necessary ta,their-purposes

.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS PAPER

,

The Palo Altoaistrictset_out to concilet a cornirehensiv,e planning pro-

ceps/ participatory in nature, with no limitation on subjects which could be

taken up for planning Purposes. In so dojng, am-limber of thingewere. done.which are unusual and deserve careful study as field-tested Methods which may

4E,

aot

s .

a

be useful in &her districts. We will- discuss three. of them. :

This paper- assesses the benefits and disadvantages of -three planning

techniques

I. Bringing volunteers from among all. ajor seta of'actors, in the school System (parents; students-,teachers, ,adniinistriitors) directly into the tech-nical process of planning and policy, formation;

'

r

-5- M

, 4d

2. Ailoviing:ti flexible pr oblem definition,.Wherebyparticipants in planning are given ample freedomto ielect areas forsytudy and planning, subject to

._.a..mininiiam_of_restraint-by-school. authorities; and

3. Establishing,an.oigan#ational structure feirplsn-ning purposes which parallels the District's id-ministr4tive-seructure in some. ieSpects.but. ` 4

remains separated from the line administrative.structure and permitiVeachers and administratorsto join with parents an students' in eductitional"study and planning in a manner which cuts perostEr`existing school structures and functions.

4

Each of these-planning teeiaueils traced over a three -year period, from

inception-to the presentation of the planning icreposals.6 thee Board of

Education; ..

4

it.

4.

, fa

. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE EXPERIMENT

The articipatory Planning Experiment; The Case.-Of Project Redesign.,iThe Palo Alto' Unified School District is a ,suburban K -12 district conic

prising 13,000 students, 20 elementaiii schools,: and 6 secondary schools.

In 1967, the Superintendent initiated efforts to involve the entire-school/

.

community in an examination and redesigns of. the educational iystemr "to.;

meet the needs- of students griming up- in'the uncertain, flist,changing, corn-

plex world of the 1970's and the early-1980's". (i) The school board enthusi-

asticallrapprOvedlheSuperintendent's proposal and Appointed a committee of

31 persons tp cieate a structure by which the sehool.districtcould proceed.. to

produce 6 long-range plan. Thin group, labeled the "Convening Committee", .

was composed of citizens, staff,- and student;.

.If

*

(1) "Project 1970's - An Educational System Redesign", Superintend-ent's memo to the Palo Alto Unified School, Dititrfct Board of Education.October.15,,

:P4

4'

s

,

S. c.

-6-

,, .

The-structure foulitiedtiythis committee Was endoiled byihe Board,'et.

: "and Project RedesWewistherelky LoOrn In January, 1913: It was to be conv- 41. Ta.,

posed of volunteers from all segments of the schwil -district. A small Paid, .staff would carry -out techniqal and secretarial tasks for4ite:volmitier plan=

/ liers. The-m ain p t 9f the -Project woutd,be.fhe &liven of; a long-range

plan by,mid4975...b3ructurally, Project Rede. sign was. to be-coordinated by a small eleven--*

s

member group called the "Design Management Team".(DMT). Theiirst task

of the DMT was to be the organization of several task forces-Irged with carfl-

.ing out studies Of the sehooldistria- to produce a.slatibaae for comptehensive. .

planning.. This was to be followed.bY. the organdation of planning. teams charged-'. -

with developing proposals, .aincilid-hoc groups, which would be "self-appointed,

or special interest groups", working on some Issues far inalus ion in the long-

range plan. During the life of the Projeot, seven task forces and eleven-(2) ..

planning teams were in operation. One group of priMirY teaoheys at first:.

emerged as an ad-hoc group, but then requested that It be designated is a plan-_

ning teaM in -primary education.

The planning teams met bi-weeklyfor an ligerage of nine months. 'They

.n --

produced platMing Prop9sate in the form of ."operatiotial goals" for inclusion inv

, . -. the Project's long-rang b plan. The DMT's task .lateiAn. its life "-became that of, , , ,

synthesizing alloierational goals into a eingle, document, whickresulted,in an"',. 7 .

. 80-page long-range plan, tie plan - which 'included 36 operational. goals --was, ... -

di:livered to the- Board in September of 1975. Action was taken on slit opera- -

-tional gohls in March of 'this. year and it ie expected that the Bard and the Cab-..

inet will respond -to the remaiiiihi 30 gOara in the .spring and summer of 1916:

EP'

4/ -

(2) "A Report to the Palo Alto Unified, School District Board -of Education".Prepared by the Convealng Committee, January 23',,1i73.

8

4

s

a.

o

.

.1I The findings reporteihersin,were obtained by a iariety of research

..tooils.

Approximately 120 active Project.partidipans were observed and corn- .i

c .tl: .**

8"4,%

1 .

4

Tss- tr - ..

.; .

.." .1 :'. , 4op

.p eted queitjonniires. Planning tiam:coordinators Were inters)iewed on corn=A A. . ..

pletkin &their teams work. Board.and Cabinet member ilereintervi.T.wed

twic durinithedevelop4- ment. bf the Project. 'MinutesieS and other printed docu

inents were eitamined. Additionally,: one_of theireseareherkacted as a parti-. t. . -a

cipant Obeerver, while the other was a non-participant observer tom the be-.-

. . .4 ,

.

...giniiingof the Piojectislifel kv 's40 -

Study of theproc ess;and provision of technical assistance to the volun-.

teer planners was made possible, in part, by a three -year, grant from the.

.$ .National Institute of Education..

4 . .t.*-4:. --

1. PLANNING-WITH UNRESTRICTED PARTICIPATION

r

.

. - - -

d

Cextain forms of voluntary participation in schools are epily.accessIbie, .,

to anyone interested. These include service as a classroom aide or tutor,

helper or organizer of field trips; inember of the PTA, -and so on. Other forms.

of participation - particularly-those dealing with-policy formation - are more re-'$ .

stricted. Not everyone can serv.4"--fo; the school'board," on appointed.advisory. . , a

.

.:

1

,,

. . . .

-- 'committees, 97 in leader'; hip roles in the PTA. Involvement: inlipolicy-level.. ..- I'activities is usually attained after a procv of selection or election. Persons

rho do not have a hiStorY of educa tional involvement or who are not well known..

by others in their community are unlikely to become involVed....

Some channels for policy-level participation are highly' accessible, of - .course: These include ,addressing the Ebard'of-Edueation, writing letters to

the local press, participating in school elections, and orginizing or joining:ad

hoc committees or groupe,of-parerits intereited-in some aspects of the schools. ,

Characteristically, these.channels.eithorpromOie_participation,h1,0 achrErsary.

. .

setting or else affect policy'forination in a very indirect. -way.. . .

In the vase of Project Redesign, parttipation yeas quite unrestricted..

The Project permitted very easy access into policy-level activities, since. 9-

.a

f 9 , Vi . ;

.."

V'

ir

a-

. ,

1

. - -

1'

: .

I

ow

ct

. u. ,8-

t-. S :. 41 . - ,

, . .. .involvement in the task forces and the planniniteamss,of the Project was open.

. .

to. a nyone The Design Management Team - the.Prbject's Coordinating body -1

INaslhe -only inkittice,Of a low-acces "ibility group- in the Pro)ecte Members,

ilhe:DMT,..as it walled, Were pointedly the Bo. ard of Educitione.. f......- A

01

= Previous reseatph has foinci that voluntary participation in school-plated. $ - --, .::$ e -... -

alctivities depends aireat deal Won+ the socio-economt6 makieup of the cornmun-.e .'w..

1/.

I

ity (Carter, 1960; Gfahar9, pft3; Minar,. 1966),, This Ilroject took place in a-" .

subtirh which is characterized liy$a high perpentage of residents in professional,- '

teclkical, and managerial occupations. PartiCipition in school affairs is rela-

tively high. More than 4000 persont volunteer their services during a typical

school year most of these (about 82 percent) become involved in auxiliary ac-.

tivities:(3) About 370 .persons'are' involved in District advisory com- .

. .mittees (bothttibse mandated by'federal programs and-thcise existing.it the Dia,-

. .1 _ ...trict level). In ncldition, attepdaiice at Board meetings-isconstant, with an aver-\_____.--age audience- of 60.personsPer meeting. A figure relatively high folr a mecfium-,. 4 .sized school district.. The community has traditionally supported'educ4) by

/ svoting favorably forbond.issdes and revenue base increases, even whelk.

4ar

..

elections in neighboiing districts were failing;

. Given the pre-Project features of the school district, W atIcli e learn$

from.a Project. which permittedunrestricted participation itypoli -lerel work?,,,..

. One hundreded-elelien persons participated in task forcq AlAd.190 parts-., 4

. .or

t.

O cipated in planning teams. Total community/school-Participation 1n -the Pro-:

ject, including. those who servedon the DMT, reached about three hilitdred.fifty - Of these,. about-f.2 percent hied overlapping memberships within the Pro-

ject. Thirty-seven percent of the participants-were pirents, percent were:teachers, 14 percent were staff Members, and 16 percent were itiaitents;

. 10

.

(3) These data were obtained from participation recorde for 'the academiCfeai\,1973-74. Similar tiends were obserVed in the years 1974-75-and-1975-76.

O

10

*

.

-

a.

.1

4.4

#

-9-I 4.

.

4.

41 ,

' I *'While the community had a high proportion 'ofcollege graduates among

its adult population (40 p-eivent), participantrin the Project had an even higher

proportion (75 percent). Thl.largest occupational category was professional,

.

and'clese to 132 Rercent of these were. In education-relatedprofessions: TA , I:. -a :

age of the participants clustered in the 30 to 50 range; there were almost no... .

participants in the 20 to 30 year age. range.'.

,t'We found that the participants were -persons with a stable interest14_

education, an interest that iiiid been manifepted,in previous- ,involvement in .. 1.

iadonsother educational activities. Eighty percentof the participants had ,

-peiformed at least *three actions concerning. tile seho6\ 1 system in the pant two:

years .(from voting in a Boatd election" to having spoken or written to the Board,

orto the Superintendent). Only a small minority Of participants (9.percent)

had not been involved before ill educational activities. These were mostly ,older male professionals. Possibly they had seen existing channelp.in the

District = particulterly.the PTA - as unsuitable forhenvelves. This Ppint

is extremely important because these persons were anew group of participants.-

who provided strong leadership fa-expertise.. r.

The Project attracted some of the brines pt.the' Disttict.- people who had

frequently expressed opinions and/or suggested recommendations ,fer change and

improVement of various eduOational policies and programs.' HOwever, 'these

critics were more numerous. in the early phase of the project. when the Con-.

vening Committee was appointed. Overall, the participants in the task forces

and planning teams-were individuals who expreSsedinoderate to highasatisfac-

tion with.the school district. The Palo Alto District, :although having a reputa-. .".

,tionfor being one othe best in the nation, does haves, small number ofdissat-6,..

isfied clients (parents .and citizens). :Thie..ean be 'inferred iron) the results of

a community need assessment survey (administered in two consecutive s).

in which about 8 percent res that they strongly disagreed with the user?4

tion that "the PAUSD gives its citizens their monets worth". In contrast,. only

2 percent of the.Projeetts participants 7".sporided inthis manner. '. .

1

^

. .

.

c*.

O

r

,..11,...-""'..Pe'

a

4

The rate of participation in-the.Project watrconstant. After the initial. ,

forination of A planning team, there was an immediate reduction in its mem-.

bership, usually within the firth three meetings. After that, membership was

quitstable. Most of the work was carriedout by a small core of active par-s

._tio_ipants. Thus, while participation.in planning did not attract alarge number

of participants, the small but committed groups that evolved made participatory i

planning feasible..

The Project's staff and the DMT sough to have heterogeneous planning., 4 .1

teams. goal was to-include each team &Victuals from the four main %*

constipencies of the school systeni:: parents, teachers, students, and.adniin-.

, wr.'.. ,

:istratoks. It is very important to note that heteroeneitylis not the same as,

representativeness. The members were from different groups but did not.reare--

sent different giou3s The concept is the same as .heterogeneous grouttings in .

classes, It w,Assoo* learned. that the degree of heterogeneity of-a Planning team

was directly related to the problem choices of the tem*, Problems of general

interest, such. as. high school griduatiop requirements, teacher. /learner rels?

tionships, anC early adolescent- education :itra6teii 4 Combination of -parents,

teachers, and school staff. in contrast, more specializedtopics, such as long- t4

rahgelhitarce and..speciapiervibed, tended toslittract mostly participants from.. .

one or two group, either mostly..Airents or mostly members of the It

Pe

.,

.. :1. was found thit attempts to increase the degree ofheterogeneity of theseteams

after they hack operated for some timeiusuallyfailed. New participants gener,a1=

ly found it difficult to join an- ongoing team is which-aiginexpiler; knel each.

other-quIMWell alieady or feltsthat othert4ms"mepbeis were very much ahead.

. in terms of the work and reseal-eh done. 8:5-fir. 0.

The participants gaveto,the planning task a Constant-sail reasonablyonably highI. ,' : 4

number of hours per week (an average of 3.8 hours), although parents and stu-... A . , 1 ,

dent,. showed significant variability in the time given to the task:. The majority. . )

of the pariicipants performed their volunteerplanner role according to the. participants

12

9.,

,I i

401' I,4 ./.,

1,

:

. a.

.

Official expectations, attached to it the perfor mance scores of the quality of

participation for the-four groups we quite

,;/ In examining theleieldf participation of those who became stable par-,

ticipants in Project Redesign, we found certain organizational variables made..zt

a significant impact on the intensity of participation-(defined as..the number of:

houri-devoh;td-tp-thellajining-taskyand-the7emality-of-participationidefined-as''

-tObehairkfritl compliance with planntng task guidelines): The lieteio. hefty4'

of planning team membership was found to be strongly, and positively related

to intensity of participation. Effects ogroup heterogeneity affecting _intesity-

of participitioh, measured in beta weights, were.32'inthe case of parents;

-.24.for students; and .30.-forteachers, Group heterogeneity-also had.amef-.feet on the quality' of participation. , Betlivelglitswere foi students and

, :

11 for eachers.. No .significant relationship at-veered in the- case ,o1 parents,r; .

and the 'ta weight for non-teaching staff members (mostly adMinistratais).:-

ow* .and quality :of participation"(beti= wbilethe feeliiirthat key decision. malt-40% ...erg:Pin the school system would'respoittfavorabli to the volanteer`Plannerst pro-

13ositis had signifiCant effecti on quality of the parents'- participation (beta = .181,A .

was negative 1-":23):

-Tk e tlarity with which the. participants understood the task,had a, .4

oalifiinpactonly in the case 61 the parents' intensityof participation (06a = .26)

staff members (beta a...35), and students (beta--7 .16). 'This feeling ofperceived .' -

. . .

rdsponsiveness on the par t of key decision-makers, on the-other hand, depressed -

the parAcipatits'Antensitrof participation, exceptin,the case - "of students,

The organiational variables accounted foi a-greater variance hi the

tensitythaniirithegiatityvf participation, Likewise, they showed more con

sistent and larger-Offeatiktfieciii---of'parenti anctitudentirthail ,.

era ancistaff members. The organizational variables we: examined implied the

existence- of" a very rational structure motivating, the individusls°.partiCipation.,

Yet our findings reveal. that neither the clarity of the task.nor the pereived ""

4

.

t

e.

. 4.

I

1/1

4:4

-12-

responsiveness to Uieplannthg proposals produced unambiguous effeCts.

.This suggests that other variables, Perhaps those related to one'sconcep-

A.,

tion of duty and status, may also.be, affectingParticipatiofi. The finding of- .

negative organization al effects lathe e case of teachers and staff member,

indicates that clients of the schoOls-(patents and studentsperceive oppor-

iunities_to_participate_in..ardiffenntlight from those working for the schools

- t

a

(teachers and administraters).t. For instance, .the negative effect of, group

heterogeneity upon the administrators' intensity and quality of Participation'

sweats that it is_threatening for administrators to treat educational issues

with parents students, and teachers. (4).

Despite their commitment to the task, the participantsrinain reward

for participation wasnot the accomplishment of planning objectivewbukthe

interpersonal relationships made possible by the participatory process. Ap-

proximately 59 percent of the participants stated that they attached value to

the planning team setting in which they could inteSct with other persons p013-

sessing a RIO interest *Jo knowledge of echiettionid issues. Twenty-three

percent made. positive mention of Ihe'educational learning experiences afforded

by the planning - process. Only 15 percent said that accomplishing planning ob- .

.0 y . jectives had beenthe.greatest source,of reward from their participation.

This finding Callsour attention to,a very important fact. Irt,normal

f

.- 0. .. -.school district operations, settings are very seldOmprovided for intensive,

A . . ..prolonged interaction- on basic, educational,issuei between indiiiduals from.

. -.across the system, individuals up and down the status ranks of the system, and

. , .. - -. .individuals from inside and outsidethe system. Interaction on basic issues

between such persons is validly cast in an adversary setting.. Typically,' war-

. ring faction= 1 t' :01; I liC1 .n con ro ray ocurriculum or program proposal. In this Project, however, diverse - individuals

4

tr.o

(4) A full discussion of the effect of the organizational variables on the partici-pants can be found in Nelly P. Stroinquist, "Antecedent-and Concurrent ron-ditions of Participation: The Case 'of Participatory Educational Planning",unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1975.

-014

,,r

. ". . . . -13-4.

a 1

. ...

interacted intensively in a collaborative *gide on program and currietklUm In-. ..

sues, -and.most found-the experience very rewarding personally, apart fromt. its direct value to the organization. The settings in which persons interact

concerning - education within organizations deserve very careful. :.- .. .

scrutiny.AI

0

. ."Ai noted above, the were not people dissatisfied with the

.

school distiiet. Perhaps as a consequence, the participants did not become. '

very strong advocates of their planning proposals. All of the planning teams. .- ,

completed their Operational,goalii but there was no Oat interearth Cailifigigh-.ing for their adoption by the-school-district. Converbely, individuals who-

...wanted to-advocate a specific Issue or problem.did.not join Project Redesign..

,

te

t

'. ....*.

t .18. ..

Instead, they operated.independently by forming their own pressure groups.,...- ...

This was observed throughout-the life of the Project. During the Project3

there were two non-Project issues in the District which brought about heavy. . ..

parent involvement in District affairs. -One was the closure of elementary. . .

schools; the other, a proposal to:nlerge the Palo Altii,Unified School District, 4

- -r-. - ,

with other.school districts, intltiding.sectioni of ga4t.Palo Alto, which'has a

substantial minority .population.. Parents and eitiznilactivated by these issues-, i

carried, out their efforts independently and did not uselProject Redesign' its a. ;.channel. to achieve- their objectives. - .

overall, the introduction of unrestricted participation in Awning pro-,deiced the following.corisequenes: . .

Participation in planning appealed mostly to educated persons with a=..

stable involvement in edicationat iffairs. Mobt. of those who-becarne volunteer

planners had given auxiliary services to the schools before and were well-'

.. ,, known for their activism and leadership in .school affairs. This was true of

all groups of participants - parents, students, staff, and teachers. :On the

other. hand, the planning task permitted incorporation of a small number of old-

er professionals (mostly male) who 'had n' ot previously been in contact With the,

. District.

4

a.

0

' 6 0

,

.

.

-

-

The of those attracteil -to 'abstract issues, such-as long-range-.

planning, was small compared-to the number who volunteered in auxiliary .

activities in-the: classroom or at the school level. Yetthose. who Mine tend--

ed to be highly committed-andtherefore-ilie Planningtaskconld be effectively

conducted. All teams fulfilled their duties, namely; they did produce opera-. . .

tional goals for inclusion -in the long -range plan.' The one exception was a team:

-which was disbanded after several meetings because no consensus could be

reached oira program Of activities.

-1Ynrestricted.participation did not result in representative participation:. .

This is not a criticism. It is too often unthinkingly Assumed that every volun-.

.teer group Must be representative. The.sclrol system, n-undertalling this-

kind of effort,, maybe thought of as seeking the best people to do a fob, exactly

'as it does when seeking employees. Voluntary participation is a very self-

selective-process,and Adivicluais. who do not see themselves as competent,

knowledgeable, and skillful as other potential .participants' genekally.will-chOose .

not to become involved. If' school administkatore intend to incorporate othere41.

from the community among folUnteet planners, ,special recruitment efforts must

beiudertaken, as well as special training and assistance prograip within the

planning process. This was done in this Project to i lfmited extent, in the case

of students and some parents..-.

, In terms of benefiti for school administrators; the.developMent of a ,

method-for unrestricted participation in planning caused -the District to tap a. $ 4

pool of relativelyunder-utilized human resources In the :community. The Pro-

ject allowed:administrators to discover and develop a core. of competent and

' efficient individuals. Duting the life of the Project, the Dititrict suCcessfhlly

uiilized.Projedt volunteers in tasks ;outside the Project itself, including help

in a .tax - revenue election and-in conducting a budget, priorities survey.

2.. UTILIZING FLEXIBLE PROBLEM DEFINITION IN PLANNING. '

The repextaire" of existing planning models is 1;rge. GOldman and Moyni-

han (1974) have found that at least eight planning mOdels are being utilized In

1

1 6

4

. v.,Taa .. -1, i. .

" 1 i. ft

education, rangbig from quantitative techniques; such as PPBS, to behavioral_ . ... . -,, ,:.methods, such as organizational deyelopnlent, to simple-projective techniques, .

. .. .. .

such as the c.oninion yearly projection-or status quo planning. These plinniek-:. ? -. .

processes have in common the fact.that they have.usuilly-been carried out by_a-=1,1 . .,..

cadre or "technical experts ". The organization's clients and its linepersonnel

have rarely engaged, in district-wide planning.

Educational': 1 have tended to be."physicar",_kAkcsens_e_thatihey2jinve

dealt'with riSou te.s (usually personnel and buildings) needed to:provicie an ap-

propriate-educational environment, Tather-thawwith-the-process-and-Produets-oit

the educational system. In consequence, the usefulness. of planning as a change

strategy has not been fully exploited.

.idrnincitrators who invest in planning must, of course,- have in-mindlitev.

the of output they desire fromplanning activities, -and,the degree to which they

feel the need to control' the..output in advance hi this case, the .expectation was'

for rather specific, well-reaeArchedpronosals, without advance specificAlione

-`of the Subject matter. In other words, there was-substantial openness to unex-

pected findings and proPosala,, only with the requirement:that there be 'adequate

evidence- of need,, feasibility, and support.-

This is a change strategy which recognizes several crucial features of. .:

school systems in regard to change. It recognizes the atieme complexity of

ediicatironal systems so:that no Central administration can understind all-the

needs and possibilities for change:, "R recognizes-the disconnected or ldosely-

cOupleil nature of the systeMwhich makes it pOpliblet for,chluige to occur in -.

several ways At the samethrie withoutidamaginitheoherationorOtherparts-ot = _ -

the system It recognizes the need.for ownership. of change to grow and develop

. internally, without imposition from above.. Finally, it recognizes the crucial'

role.of the community in sbhoOl changeprocesses.Project Redesign departed from the standard planning practices .by. work-

big on the assumption that a participatory planning. activity is important because

it allowspersons otherthan "technical experts" into the plainikg process. These

O 17r

. .

T

e

&le

:-.1

1

-16-

.11$ 7.

persons bring their own liexpertise"_ as teachers, -administrato'ii's; parenta,...

and students. They are provided additional expertise in the form of technical

assistance-, and they develop new expertise .as they gain experience. withinthe. -Project.

.

Project Redesigns_oiight.fo have a very wide "scope". 'Anything within

the school system could potentially be affected by the plan. The first set Of

planning teams were given complete liberty to define problem areas with

whichthey would deal. The seconesetofplanning teams were assigned "plan- .

fling-diaries!' some-relatively-broad-concerns-that hould-be-exaMined,within --

the long-range plan: long-range finance, special services in-the District, ad\

4

ministrative needs, teacher/learner relationshipS, and so On. This was- doe'

:because, in the op inion of the DMT, certain brqaci areas were too important

to risk omission, and because the task of probleth definition within new teams 7g'"--.. . ,

was found to require.an initial statement of the biota area within which the team_ r

` would work. -dr

"."

The kind of planning process-that-erhergequider the participatory_plannhig

model resembled a modified pattern of needs-assesiment planning. The proeesis

,.evolved around identification of "what is",and."what should be" impbening in

the school district. Most-planning-models assume a rational mode of decision-

making.in which (a) problems areilifined; "(b) data oil alterilatiVe-solutions, are

obtained; (c) alternativesatives are compared against each other; and (d) -the most sat-.

-

isfactory SOlUtion is finally chosen.. In the case 'of Project Redesign, the pro -

gression by which We teanis.moved'froth defining a pioblem to offering some -pro,..4

posals or ecommendations-to solve if was- not strictly' linear. There -were a

great many feedbacic loops atween problem. choice and data-gatherin before the

actual shaphig of the proposal was begun. Planning teams frequently .said: that

they "uncovered" issues as they "went through.the information" and "asked new

questions as th"ey became more knowledgeable"..- .,

Observation of the Plamiing teams,. as. well as interviews with team coord-

inators, revealed three main stages in he-planning prOVeSs: the problem defini-9 yr

tion stage, the data- gathering stage, and the koblesolution stage.

er

18

.,.

. ."

4.

Whether a planning.team had - complete freedom to select its topic or :"

was giVen a "charge", it speit a sizable amount of titne(ranging from three "11 a

to twelve meetings) trying-to define its problem in such away that'all mem-

bers of the team agreedonwhat they Wanted.to do and could dot Teatns

had a "charge" spent asp:miler amount of time:defining-theft' problem, but. . :"

these-teams.had to'go through a procens otunderstanding the chargeand-Asp-

ing it to their per4eption of their needs and capabilities. .3

Most of the data gathering activities of the .planning:teams.were closely..

relatedidthe problems-chosen-for-examination-.--Verylittleuse-wastiinide'et

voluminous data -generate,d by earlier tasitforces. On the other hand, the

planning teams carried mit a gteat dettl.of *arch on their own.. They fre-.

quently did extensive literature searches, visited Other schools, and interviewed

personnel in the achool.dtstrict. Five -of the teams gathered datafrOt.the

school /community by means of'surVeysif Approximately 2500 .community and.

staff members participated indirectryln the shaping of -planning-proposals by

responding to surveys. The .process that took place within the planningteams

llustrates, the inadequaCies of pl;mning.procedures or, goal - setting exercises,

in whipb there is little ,provision for deviation iiopi a straight linear prociss.

The teams needed to be able to learn frrem initial attempts at defining the prob-..

lem and gathering data.' They-needed to go back to rethink the probleni, to rer.,. " . .

examine the data,and sometimes -to look forile# data.It was.a freewheeling.

process. The opportnnity*and the setting forlhis kind of process isnot oftene

`Provided in schools.

From the steam coordinstors"deseription of their plakling activity,. al-°'

ternative solutions Were.seldom explored formally.. In some cases, the pro-,

44

.. posed solutions "emerged" from the.data-gatheringittielf. 'This Was particu-

larly the case when surveys of Parent's; students, and teachers were utilized.. . ,,'

a In other cases, the eventual redefinition of. the problem led to the formulation- : -

of the proposal.'s 4

Questionnaire responses by indiLxiduaittearc members closely resembled.-

the judgment of the team coordinators about the degree of difficulty of various

19

-18-

planning activities.' In both cases, the data-gifie..rTniiiiocess was seen as.grelatively easy, while the design of the proposals was considered very diffi-

cult. While only 5 percent of the participants responded that "obtaining the- .

information and knowledge necessary to do the j613" was.very. diffiCidt, 37

,percent respondedthat "rnovingsfram information and datagathering to spe-t .

A *

spe-

cific operational"goals or proposals" was very difficult. About 34 percent-

stated that "moving from the planning charge into relevant work assignments"

was very difficult. Teams and individual, team members frequently plunged- .

into-dita-gathering-withgreat-energy-after:thetough-process-of-defininglket--*

- and specifying the desired data was completed: Datazgathering can

-be seductiye -in its tendency to crowd out time-for the more difficult tasks..

Whereas the official role of the DMT was.goordinatingthe work of the -

planningleanis, rather than initiating pew proposals, this uncleiweit a de

facto change during the writing of the fOnerange.plan. As a result of the free-

don't the plan/Ogg teams. had exercised in establishing planidarproblems, the. .

DMT and the Project's staff.- the two. groups formall res a onaible-for the

ity.of the plan - saw themselves compelled to establish i bklance of topics. Th e

DMT and the Project staff, who actually wrote the plan, set-out to -do a "synthesis".

of the operational goals presented by the - various planninkteams;.litit.sOon_founci: -themselves "supplementing" these operational gosh; .by.-addft concerns:they

.personally had: concerns, they:htutieen expressed in the various, assess-. _.ment surveys, and concerns they had heard from Boird members: Consequently,

although the;plan itself was initially expectedted come frcim the teams, the 36

. operational goals in the long-range plan hadthe following origins, 'according toI

.

planning team.coordinators and DMT chairmen:

t

24

(;

1

n.

ww 4. .8.

. " P -T.A fi E'

Operational .Gaels- Contributed to the Long Range plan. by Planning _Teams.

Team

. .-dElementary Education ". . 1

Primary "Education 5Earl$5Adolesqent.Education 3Secondary. :Ectiation 1

School/doinmunity Relations . 1.

'Long-Range Flhance 2Teacher/Learner 'Relationships . 1-

Curriculum ' . , 1 .

AdminiatiativeNeesds . 2Special Educatiohal Services 3 ..

DMT 7Not reCognizedby a Team 'Coordinator- .- 57 _-

DireetCOn;".; Indirect Con-tribution ribution

3-

3

1

..

.1

0 .

As can be seen, of the 36 operational goals,..the.plannind4anis olaimed

direct or indirect authorship of 25; MIT leaders recognized 7 hi having been

origiriated in the DM1; and' 5could not be identified by the cOordinators, The

paiticipatory processes i. therefore, did not result iii a purely participatoryO .

product. Part of this is.explainedbf the.ttailmon experitheelhataiiiieTygroUps

work on the output of other groups, changes .are invariably, introduced. In the

case, Project Redesign, 6 team coordinators were pleased with the job done

y-the IiM-T in fitting-the-operational. goals-.into,thelong.T.range_ planked:44e

"only minor chahges" hAd been made, or because their proposals had been ren-

dered "more specil The other 4 coordinators, however, felt thatsome

the proposals-had been deleted, "rendered more weak and less controversial",

or "taken out of-conteit"..

fort witirthe changes introduced

verithese coordinators did not express disown-.

the DMT. They.saw those modifications as

, part of the DMT's coordinating role.

Although the teams had ample freedom to define their charges and to "pro&0.

pose solutions, the eventual operational goals we not in general, highly

21.

ti

No.

.

. .. . :A a .

controversial. Eight of the 11 team coordinators th'ught their pr-oisoials

"addressed the needs.and concerns of teachers "; were-Vexlepsions- of what.. . ,

.we -have been doing"; "echoed a need thii community has been expressing for :. . . ... ....

the.last twenty years"; or "represent in improvemmit over the present situ*:

tion". Two team leaders described their proposals aninovatiye because. .

3

ti

, .

these were-either "trying tomakeifie educational ,Systein ihore-respontrive

to changing needs% or "gave parents more rights in the schools and-asked

for individualized prograinsicif speciarchilaren"; Only one team coordhiator

categorized ffiTti eant proposals as controversiai. In hff-cit,. he. propos-. .

als were "causing the District to respond toState action", foroitig the Dia-

trict to-react tepossibl legal directives about.edticatiCnal.finanee:..

$ The opinions of members of the'Board of Education. and the central ad-,.v

rainiatrationregardiag the- proposals were not unlike those of the team coo ra-

inators. Both groups th ought that the plan dealt with the most important.. -.-

issues in.the District. SoMe-of these-persons mentioned omissions, includig. . . , .., . -,4 , . t

. cost effectiveness approaches to education, teacher evaluation, cultural 'plural-. ,- -

: Asiii), and education fol. the gifted. No Subject-was:perceived as "missing" by i.

more than one respondent .in interviews with the c entra administration and the ,.

...- -------- ___Board., .. /011 . i

k W. .I .

. A number of central administratori expressed disappointment at not see-.-- - -

ing *mord "controversial ii and "innovative" Proposals. Several.. stated that the

proposals provided substantial support none side. of issues,.pow before the

District: The latter include develOpmerit of alteniative4lemePtarY school pro;.-:'-'

grains,. changing from junior high schools to-middle schools, and developing.g -

better coordination of career and vocations& education. Most of the-prOposals

, were seen -by-most .administrators as addressed to changes tdreaayunderway

In the .District... . -

.. Tice fact.that an open .planning process did not produce more controversial. ,r-..,-, A

or "innovative;' proposals deserves cominent: Thiawas not a diviiive process.,/ . ,,

(5), Cultural pluralism was not dealt with largely because the District maintaineda Department of Human RelattOns Specifically charged with developmental' ,work in,that area.

ti . 22

.. .

. .-21- :4

Q

.. :'....,

; 1 ' 0. *...

V. .0 A I

It.could.have been, presumably, since this District has Its shire.cireonfrOVeriy;$

l'he act ef,deliberately raising" broad.and.deep iduicational issues inthe context'

of a planningprocess with accompanying norms of research, data-gathering, and: 0

examination of needs and solutiOns; in lieu of raising. such issues in adveranry. .. ,.-. . . ,settings may-have had-the effect of making some of the issues less:divisive. While

many persons saw the proposalii as_ not very controversial or innovative, the-pro-.. . .1

posals do deal with substantial-.issues, some of which will bring about.ntajor

4 changes in the. system if implementatiOn is succ'essful. The planning process, se-_

....

zonductei in this Projec. , is atilTT&Catiotnoce 6iTalre-onnerneriniier-Con

L

,

. .

ditions of generally-positive attitudes toward the schools, this.type of process may , '

be a much more fruitful way to:bring about changes and improvements than using

standard existing .seVidiStrict _mechanisms; Whether proposals generated in -. . 4..t:-.such-a process would 6e,more.divisive under conditions of high distrust and dis7

- ..affection froin the system is 4,6t known. There are reasons tobelleve that even

under these conditions, this process would produce useful andon7divisiv results., .

It may be apparent from.this discussion thatIdong with proposalirfor

change, this Project facilitated another process, namely, that of improving and

deepening ideas already current Within.the system or in the educational scene out-

side this particular District.4 This second process :1a also-one that IS not proVided.,

for very extensively ,in normal school district life. We may be doing someood..

things now which. need to be. better understoo and given more depth- and content

through research and planning, in the minds of both staff and Citizens. This may

counterbalance the need for change -in other-areas and makeelhat-change easier. .,

It is difficult to provid a brief summary cif the 36 operational goals con- .taged in the long-range plan. If we use the typologY developed by Stevet(1976),. -

whielrestablishes three-different types of:educational-reform (those dealinkwitlt

structure, .product;_ and the process of the schop) system) (6), the operational,..

. , ,

.7..

I

(6) Stevens considers structural reforms those dealing with basic, organitationalresources (dollars,' teachers ,building) that seek to increase the internal effi-ciency of the system; product reforms aresthose.covering.eervices anti policieshaVing direct impact on students.(e.g. programslor the gifted, compensatoryeducation,, work-study); and.process reforms are those affecting educationaldecision-making. ,

9 a. . ,

. ;3 ,

a

.

6

.,

,

..

goals,can be classified as follows:

.

",

V'4j

.

4

TABLE II , J. .. '

. .

Number of Contained in the Long-Range Plan; by Type. ...

Il-.) Structure

.__16

Product- 15

Process. 5

. 36'

. ,. . . - ..

Stevens {ibid.), has note¢:tliat-structure ,rejatecn i-Wproduct-related re- .

t= . . . . 0 -7..,....forms areusually promoted by administrators "and,. hence;; are inoreeasily ac-

. ... .complished. As can be seen in Table 11, Most of the operational goals contained

inthe long-range plan dealt with either-structure.or product issues. Despite its. .. ,

participatory origins,..then, the long-range plan seemed to follow the usual iat-. - jI

tern of most in-housedesifineirleforMS: . -. ,

. .

Prom the use Of a iiipthodfeaturilig-fleXide problem definition, several .. . . .

' lessons have been learned'. Thechoicetby the group itself to deal with what theyi ; A

consider important* may account *part for the great amount of-time, commitment,r

and effort devoted-by participants to the planning task., HOweVer, ;because. of the

isolated interest that tends to develop in each team, there is a tendency at the pro-

ject leVel to end up with disjointed:proposals P s when. openp___:_arqcipatory, ....,

methods are used, the expected.result -should -be less a set-of highly-intregrile- ------

proposals, which forin a tightly-knit tifaii;itridin'ort.ii-setitiecOMMilidatiOlis.:OK

issues or prob lems which are f.ound to be important Eat solvable by methods

1 prOposed. .......,

The planning style that emerges from participatory planning teams ip not

characteilzed by formal examination of gdtetnative solutiOni.. Solutions tend to

be those which receive the consensus of .planning team members, after numerous.

. 1

24

.

.-Z.

-23-

. .,

trial-And-error, attempts with other alternatives. This propensity to make de-

4 cieions by "satisfying" instead of optimizing has been. noted elsewhere (March. .. t.;:k..

and Simon,. 1958). Simply stated,. solutions nhich ate proposed are regarded . A

as satisfactory solutions, but Sufficient analytical:44ot IS not aprtlied to state ..,.

.'"

that these_ are`optimal solutions, bitter than all others.

A flexible problem definition. ay. also lead-to the exclusion "X. certainor

issues or problems ,which do .not fall within the areas of concern oethe volun-.

_

ter lannere.. This leads toi change in the "coordinating" role of the group

. I

. . ,at the top, sincelt is put ix the position. of comint_up.With a reasonably compre-....

.- "..ensiv plan. Allexibleprolgem" .definition. also places a burden on the Pro-

. .

jectis salaried staff. Since these are,persona formally reponsible -in the Organ-

ization, they see themselves forced to include, proposals the planning teams-did. . t- - - - 4

.not ;Iigrr-but_that should be there,. acCorUing to the "probleins they have per-

ceived while dealing witit.-----:ir------ileorgan zation. ., ., , '' 4

In spite of theire probleins,--the.basic"concept of setting.nza planning'

..--.pocesS with open problem definitfon in broad participatorYsettinirefe.agible.. -- i --------...

It tequires.anceLmess. on. the Part-of "schOol ofpcialbrto proposals they did pot '. ....,...,

originate, coming from withinthe.teaChing and administrative ranks, aswellis ... ....

- from among pakents and students. These 'proposals- are allcr.yed to. develop and

mature in a collaborative atmospPere , rather than being put forWard in adver-. .... ..

'sary settings by special interest groups.tl

3

4 A PktALLEL ORGANIZATION STRATEGY-

The Project 'was Set up so that the -Design -managenient Team -(DMT)

ifoilld-coordinate the work of. the planning teams. To assure that the Project.

Would have independen,ce, within the organization, A was decided that he-DMT

would report diredtly to the Board of EduChtione The Project director; on the

other hand, was made a thember-oLthesuperintendentis 'cabinet, the topadmin-

istrative council of the District, And reported to the superintendent.. .

O

25

4.

.._

. L,

.

.

A'

-24-f'.....

1

This -structure resulted- in the creation of a new orginiiation. within 1*

the schobl-distiict.which in s cme ways paralleled the regular District strut;

jure. Thirea hierarchy of teams and reporting relationships -and a ;

troaddivision,of labor to encompass widely-differing educational and organ7.

izational concerns, Thia0sp'eciar organization was to dealw ill - definedill-defed

,. . . .

problems.and issues centering around thefuture of the school district. It...

Would not get involved with dailyoperatiabal teaponsibilities:andpAblems,

but would, nevertheless, have the freedoniloexamine any issue concerningi. . .

present operations People ii this new organizatior would,come Iron) a variTSt . . ..

A . .....etrof-rolks in'the regtilar organization burhere.they would assume new rols

, i. i,p .*

and would W.: ek as equals,* tegardless.of-positi6n;in the formaLorganization.

The creation of a parallel organization bilhis niannfr is not unlike thq orgapjf-, :

izationtil change strategy labele.d-the "collateral organization'''deVeloped by.. . .

Zand (1974). M. This strategy has"been tested in induptrial andcominereial?

. -

6 s ettings. In thewords Of Zand:. ;

i; . Ic' ... I

Ty,pically, a" group-lin:an-organization) has-a Chainof

command and a division o# responsibilities designed'' .

primarily for coiSingwith well=defined, repetitive ... problems. Continued change iniconsumdrardesirses, '

comPetgorei -tactics, 'and product teaboldgy, introduce. unforeseen, 111 -defined problems and OpPortunities.

The hierarchical organizational structiire is not.de-signed to, discover and solvethosits nill -struct3ireds, ,

problems: Managers, Tegardleii. of organizationallevel, Jlterefore, need collateral modes; .

, .,,4

We believe-that, the hierarchical structure of schools, as well as that. .

of commercial organizations studied* Zand, 18,0"designed priniarily for,cop-

.ing with wolf-defined, repetitive prOblerns, and not very adaptable to "dealing.: .'

with ill -Alined problems and opportunities", Illgid bureaucratic, structures

44 -

pa.

,

.

( 7) Concepts borrowed from Zatid areused, extensively inThis secjion. "Thereference is toDile Zand, "Collateral, Organization: A New Change

-Strategy", Journal. of Applied Behavioral Science, you°, No.1, pp. 63-89.. - .

. , .

, ,, .

. . .ft. . 26 .. . .,

IX

.

4

a' .

,...._ .... -- - . .

i

.

..

. -

e

a. a -

-25- .A

r

have been shown< to present problem& whenthe organization must deal with.,

uncertain, ambigtious environment (Burna,and Stalker, 1$1). Many will -

'agree that school Ostemit do face such environments atthe present time:-

The partiRular characteristic of school bureaucraciei which inhibit imiova-. .. .., 4 tion have been exifnined by, many persons. 'A good.diicussion of thia is pro-

.

. . "yided by Abbott (1969).. ich;o1 managers are not. more -inclined than other. ' .

, managers 'to encourage the development of proposals; an d ideas. which are

r---;0k

0

- "unsanctioned and unpredictable ", in the worth: of Zand.

.

a 1.

41

School officpis can utiliie differing.organizational-ptructures for dif

"-ferent.iiurposed,If.they have the desire io.do so. Zanasserttbat agionwho uses only. one organizational. structure for all problems is like a carpenter

.

who only -knows how to use a hammer. Structures can be rearranged and tem-.

4, /

.porary. structure& assembled and disbanded, to.dell with delering needs and

pyiblems. Sarason (1971) comments/that, in the ease principals-, there isz , .9

1/' a /tendency to stay near the lower margins'of what'may be done, basing such lack

C.

-, -of flexibility on conceptions of What the .system wilftolerate or what will work

which have not been tested. What are needed are concepts explaining and legitil-, ,- . A

nviy.in; departures from standard structures, and legitimizing relationships and.;°.:3 ."

flows of information and Ideapiontside the usual channels. This does not mean43-

an undermining. of the manager'i position. On the contrary, there is ample evi-.

, 'dinceotbat if such planning and d ion -making structures enhance the influ-,, ., ,--: ' . .0 1

. ened/of .parents, students, teache and lower-level administrators, this need6

a

.

. not beat the cost of influence and authority on the part of top administrators.

These person& may well find their own influence strengened, along with every-

one else in the system franikenbaum, 1968; Johnson, 1'971). Skills and know-

ledge may be brour into the plantinipprodess which are present in the.schoo

system,and the conitAnity but are not utilized by.normal administrative proced-

ures: Attention and energy may befOcused on these ill-defined problems which. . ti

otherwise do not happen because of the press of other issues. Norms which .

.1

.

.

'lb '

40

t

s

r"

,

,

s

-26-i

, .exist within the organization which make it veryshard for new ideas to get a

.fair hearing may be overcome. .WOrk may proceed on,difficult prOblems in a

a

collaboratiie setting instead of the commonplace ;dvertiary setting hi which-a. -

special interest group;preiients its demands.-,

in the-planning process, we are examining a "collateral organization" s

set Tip on a temporary basis, which did provide for new approaches to plinning .

and problem-solvidg, it showed both merits-and problems, which are dis- -

cussed belbw. '. o

The collateral organization 'strategy for planning assumes*fatiOnal- . - .

mode of decision-making. This does not mean that the organization is expected

to base its ,decisions on perfect knowledge anti unambiguous ranking of priori-

ties, but rather that the decisions will be based .on-data and that the organisation

. will proceed to implement the necessary changes; once certain problems ire

identified and adequate solutions posed. .

The creation of a collateral organization is intended to facilitate a new. , .

mode of behavior within the school' system: it does not attempt to replace the

usual roles, relationships) and wars of behaving, but to suppleraeid them with

new behavior patterns for persons while' those persons are working within the

collateral organization. This assumes that persons are capable of-different

kinds of behavior within the organization atdifferent times' and places.

. Zand argues that an organization may operate too exclusively in what he

calls the "authority /production mode". The collateral' organizaticin may proiride

the opportunity to operate for certain purposes. In the "knowledge /problem" mode.

The contrast between these modes is .described by Zand, as follows: (ibid., p. 684

.

. ,

284

...

,7.

is

-277

Figure IContrast between Two OrganiiationalAfoaes

Autherlty/Prodectlen Knowledge/Plebizon

Elements-- .

t. Levels of authority Msny

2. Division of labor High .

3. Links to others-In the, . Few Manyorganization

1. Source otinfluence Position irithe hierarchy Ability to identifyAndand power

5. Use of rules and High Lowprocedures ' 1

. 't

6.PrIrnary purpose Maximize output Analyze or invent /knoviedge to solve

' problems

solve the probleit

4 1"

t

We wilt now describe ways in which PrOject Redesign serves.to illus-

trate the collateral organization mode of planning and problem-solving, then

discuss some of the ways in which

mode is employed.

Project Redesign did succeed in setting up a working collateral organ-

ization. An elaborate structure came into being and operated 'parallel to the

regular organizational structure. The members of this parallerorganization

,came from a wide range positions within the school district and community.

In the and industrial model, all members of the AraUel organization

are from the regular omnizatioilal structure. In this school version, members

were drawn from-the corn/M*10y andthe>stUdent body as well. Community vol-

nteers and htudents were in effect accorded a specialmembership in the organ-, ,

r systems present problems when this

ization as participants in this Project.

29

4,

:Within.the planning teams which made up the core of the parallel organ-,

ization, groupnorms of peer equality'were quickly established.: Some adminis-.

trators and some teachers grumbled about having to explain "professional" mat-t.

ters to lay persons and students in the early stages of the work. 00 Eich team

went through a "shakedown" period during which several persons dropped out.

After this settling-down phase, peer equality among the working team that re-.e

mained became the. norm. For example, it was standard practice for team mem-

bers to call each otheribrfirst names, even when students were addressing prin-

cipals. The level-of interaction was high. Students did show a lesser Propengity

to initiate discussion than adults.

Consideble pains were taken to establish norms of Nanning,behavior

within the planninVeams, and to a large extent this effort was successful, judg-

ing by responses to questionnaires and by observations. These-norms included -

the importance of beingin touch with the commungy. About issues under consideiat

tion; gathering the bell available data to apply to problems; keeping he needs of

Students- moifelearly in mind; and working toward specific proposals. The normsv

called foropenness.to diverse points of view andstressed rational comparisons,i

. and data-gathering, rathei.1than relying upon one's own opinions and biases. Emir-

mous energy was laves d in data-gathering. New norms developed within teeing;

in which supportive, po itive comments and suggestions were made when new

ideas were propoted, i4 contast to a common organizational norm in which new

pioposals are met with mediate criticism before the idea is fully enough devel-

oped to withstand such riticiam. ln other words, a norm of cooperation and

collaboration developed, rather than norms of competition. and criticism, within.

J

(8) It has been suggeste4i by others experienced in participatory planning that in- .z

teractionIetween professionals and nonprofessionals.is most successfulwhehthe non-professionals, are generally regarded as more competent thanthe professionals by the professionsils themselves. Such eidra,competencecan be-deliberately divelopeck and pains can be taken.to make sure the pro-fessionals perceive the speciil competencies.of the bon-protessionals.-For - -example, student's hake special competence atperceiving the student view-point.

1

. , ,l

1. k' ..

. 3 0" ,.

:

t.

this particular working relationship, for-most of the planning teams.

The teams were asked to come up with specific proposals that would be,

come *put t .the pOlicy formation process at the topuf the °Twin: ization. This

was made very specific by the use of the term "operational goals"-, defined as'0 descriptions of desirable-future -states of affairs possible within a time span °

of two to five years. (s) Teams were asked to produce such goals, and did so

without exception.1,

According to Zand, acollateral organization is distinguishable from and

linked to the formal oiganizatiOn_in-the-following ways: '

a. The parallel organization is set up to identify and solve problems

not solved by the form-al organization'. Within-the conteit.of-a school district,

it seems that the parallel orgadization is more successful at identifying prob-

lemslems than at solving then:. As noted, the parallel organization doeinot supplant

the authority of the formal. oiganization, which 'continues to hold responsibility

N.

for all decisions.

The Project !bad a contribution insofar as it addressed many problems

'not otherwise considered by the school district; As examples, a study of over-.;

all' curriculum policy formation within the -District resulted in a proposal for a. .

_curriculum commissiod, and the.ktudy of general problems in secondary educa-

tion led to a proposal for competency -based edudation. These are not new ideas

but they are new to this District By means of this process; 'substantial amounts

of information and discus sion concerning these Issueslas ensued throughout the

District.

As the work progressed, the Project beamethe setting in which individu-

als pursued their own, interests in a way which would not have happened outside

this fProject. for example, a group of middle school teachers examined alterna-

tive schools in surrounding communities and wrote a report about them which was

() This definition is from James M: Hardy, Corporate Planning for NonprofitOrganizations. New York: Association Press.,- 1972.

4

4

81

"II

:

1*

'-30- 4.

widely circulated; and a citizen made a study of the changintpicture in col-.'

lege admissions which was extensively,tised: A study of-certain aspects of

'the relationship between teachers and students was carried out by-a group of

parents, teachers, and students, and:becanie the basis for faCulty workshops,

asmell as being used in several classes for discussion plirposes.

b.

channels of communication, and new ways-of selling-old ideas.

Withoutany question, -this was'achieVed in Project Redesign. People

were brought- together in new combinations across schools, status leveli, and

communities. Old information-channelawere.bijpassed. Interviews were con-,

ducted, files were examined, and surveys were -carried-out-without Seeking ap-

proval through normal administrative channels. The Project Redesign staff

advised on technical and organizational matters in order to avoid problems of. .

inadequate or improper survey instruments or =necessary intrusions, or in.

1 41 1 1 1 1," / 1 1

order to-negotiate permission to obtain information if 'questions were

Noroblemis were.experienced in obtaining information desired by-the teams.

bformation from outside the system was also sought in great quantities. Tele-

phone calls were made, the ERIC. system was wiled, letters were sent out, and

numerous visits were made to other institutions. Information flowed freely

from the teams, as well as to the teams. Num erous reports and papers were

developed by individuals and teams and these were freely printed and distributed

within -the system, without waiting for official apiiroVal, illomwof these reports

1were widely used as materials for workishois and discussions throughout the. ,

District.

Communication was very open among the members of the lesinsj as

well as befiveen the individual teams. and the system. Team members took much

pleasure in the free-wheeling interaction about educational protdems,within

teams. This interaction, as stated earlier, was considered by the participants

to be one of the major rewards for participation. This Suggestti that the

1

32

1

-31-

-collateral :organization format in schools -meets the need to have a setting

witifin-sohools -in which teachers, administrators, "parents, and students can

engage in purposeful, searching discussions of educational issues on.a sus-

tainedbasis. The standard school structure makes no provision Id such

interaction.

c. Both the regular organization' and the collateral organization are

available to managers to use, depending upon the problem. During the existence

of Project Redesign, the Distkiefidiainistration became aware of the resources -

the expertise and the people - made avail4ble by the Project. The administra.

tion, through the superintendent, chose when to utilize these -resources and When,

not to use died). In the cases where the ilminiitration used Project's re-

sources, such as in carrying out a successful tax revenue campaign, administer-

ing a budget priorities survey in the community, or involving parents and citi-

zene in public hearings about elementary school closings, such resources were_

'specific individuals with-specific -skills or reputatiOns..

The school administration-did not use the resources of Project Redesign

in a manner that could.be identified as contributing to administrative decisions.

Five planning teams presented interim reports to the and the superintend-.

ent. These reports were,generally received with praise, but they did not evoke,

any w ritten reply or comment. On the other.hand, the superintendent asserted.

that he had reed the report's, used them in Cabinet meetings, .and had found the

input "valuable and useful.".

d, The collatetal organization consists of the same people who work in

the formal organization. There are ne new people. This feature of the Collat

eral organization as described by Zand is-complex in the case-of schools. In

one sense, as-we have noted earlier, there were few "new" participants, since

most people who became involved had been active in edicational matters before.

In the same sense, students are not "new" participants. Many of these people

are new participants in policy-level activities, however. For many, At was a

'33

'I

-32-

role that placed them for the first tiime in closeWorking relationshipaAilth

people in the central district. administration. Moreover,. somwholly new

people did become involved. For the most part, Project liedesignixit'pecple

together in new roles and new combinations .who already had some close rela-

tionship.

with the:Orgenixationi not unlike the Zand industrial model, except

in the wider diversity of organiiational roles andrelationships. ;7

From the above discussion, it is apparent that in many respects, Pro-.

ject Redesign.does illustrate the collateral organization mode of planning and

problem-solving. There are,, however, More problematic issues_thanthoso.'

just discussed. These include the interface between the formal Organiiationr .and the parallel organiiation, the,basie issue of community involvement in s

this mode of planning*, and the utilization of the output of the planning process

- -by the school system'.

Project Redesign operated a4-a, large, complex parallel organization.

It would be possible to utilize theconcept of the collateral organization with a

small group around the chief administrative. officers of the School- system. In,

. this case, however, we are examining an ambitious, large-scale, :broad-ranging

enterprise. It proved difficult to maintain Close interaction between the Project

and the school, district governing board and adininistratio-n.

Project Redesfin was an agenda item at 16.04 percent } -of the 90 Board

of Education meetings held during the period from the inception of.the Project

to the time the board forinally received the plan. In addition,, three special study

sessions were held concerning the Project, Substantial time ass,devoted to the

selection of appointees to the initial "Convening Committee" and the Design Man-

agement Team. nce the planning process was under way,' involvement of the

board was limited. Atfirst,. quarterly reports were to be provided, but after

three%such reports, they:Were discontinued because they were time-consuming -

and did not elicitmuch.interest from the board. Two annual management plans

were presented, but feW comments were fed back on this material. Thit Project

34

- -33-

staff maintained personal contackwith individual board members by means-of

lunches and inforInal briefings. :In'mid-Projeci, theboard-appointed one of its

members to serve as a liaison With-the Design:Management Team, And this

person subsequently attended all meetings of that group. Individual planning

teams Made special presentations on three occasions when their work applied

directly to matters on the board agenda. However, in the over-all_process,-

there was but limited engagement of the board 1h-the:planning-process. This -

is not necessarily surprising, except thatinhis case, the Project was set up:,as a board Project,' with a-direct reporting relationship to,the-board, rather

than through the-administration. The analogy of a city planning commission.

which reports directly to a city council was sometimes mentioned in.explaining

this relationship. From the administration's point of view, thts,i(porling reln,

tionship resulted in the planning proposals' coming -to the administration in a man-

ner similar to those of an outside consulting agency or an outside study commis-

sion. The administration was not directly responsible for the study and the subse-

quent proposals. : This provided certain advantages to the administration which,

under these circumstances, was free to lake an independent stand on the meritsli

of the plans propOsed. .,

The thought of settineup a planning-process reporting directlyto theoard

might appear -risky tCkschool superintendents. However, the process did not un-

dermine the administration in any way, even though -some Projeckreports were

very critical of administiators. The Project staff reported to the superintendent: ,

personally and the superintendent was always,in a position to intervene if he hadA,

desired toda, so, although that-did not happen.

. District administration at the top levels also participated in the planning

process only in limited ways. On several occasions, the superintendent appeared

at Project Redesign meetings, sometimes to make statements of support

or encouragement, andat other ;times just to join in when he happened to be in the

building. He -did not actively engage in the discussions.*

r_ i

35S

734-

The snperintendentte. administrative cabinet is a group. of -nine pers-Tins;

inOluding assistant suPeiintendents and certain other adminlitratokS. This is,.

the chief administrative 'decision-making body-of the District. ExclUding the

director of Project Redesign, only three embers of thhirgroup,particif)itted

'as members of PrOjeet Redesign teams or task forces, and these three parti-

cipated for only brief periods. On occasion, one assistant-superintendent asked

the Project Redesign staffito meet-with his staff to discuss. evelopments within

the Project. Top adininistrators, werefrequently asked for-infoiniation or were-,

interviewed in oonnection with.planning team. studieil. Nevertheless, the engage-,

ment of thiii-group in the planning" lirocess4vas limited; This was one Outcome of 7

structuring. he process -in 4 direct reporting relitionship to the board of -education.

This lack of ,engagement posed dilemmas ti.2the planning participants 'and,

the staff. The norms crthe Project called for open and collaborative considera!

Lion of ideas. Since the top administration did not share hi-those norms, propos-

als could not, or at least were not taken to this group in-partially=completed

form: The sense prevailed-that the top admitiistratOresh,oul hot receive pro- -,.

posals until they were .in finished form.

In other words, persons _who participated in. the collateral organization

were asked to perform two roles - their regula organizational" role and the temp -

orary, special role of participatory planner. The top admihistrators were not

asked to play two roles, *tattling instead only thnormal authoritirole. Giijeii

their position in the District, thisifact is the strongest, departure of Projeet-Re-

dedign from the collateral-organization concept. Ideally, the superintendent's

cabinet would have beeneng,ged in the planning prodess by. Qme Means while

proposers were still under development. This, could -have be'en s.coniplished by'

special worksimips in which the ebinetmembers worked as tempo4ary,p4ers

with the rest of the planning participants in a free investigation of.

alternatives.

The crucial moment inthe liferface between the collateral orgenizatir4 1.

and the formal organization occurred when the long-range plan was subrditted

36 U

..

-35

,

the board iii September, 1975. Detailed information was provided lit wrong...

formal presentation. Board members -rated each proposal as it was presented

in terms of their willingness to act-on it quickly or their desire to defer it for

More discussion and information. Followingthe initial presentation to the

:board,. the superintendent was asked to study the plan amito come back with

the recommendations of his staff..

At that time,. the District was going through a period of elementary

seliodclosures and there was a probability that the District might face,a merger

with severalneighboring districts. The cabinet devoted four. meetings to review-

ingti plan, but found this process extremely difficult,. It was decided to recom-

mend action on some goals-and to defer action-on most of them. Chosen for im-

mediate acceptance were -goals which, according to stated criteria, were "con -

sistent with actions alreatly approved by the Board"; "were not -likely to require

increases infiscal resources"; and "could be pursued within normal work assign-

ments of staff;!'.

The whole issue was tabled with the conaent of the-board until the school,

closure issue was resolved. That resolution was- reached in February, 1576.

In tike same month, the board did formally adopt six Project Redesigoals and '...

is scheduled to act on-further subsets of the goals during the spring and summer.

of 1976, aOpth.lhe superintendent's cabinet -and the board have the oppoitunity

to study them further. -.

Basi ic issues surrounding the interface between the planning,planning, project and

the administratiod may be summarized'ummarized as. follows:. .

Participatory planning using the collateral organization concept calls

forhe temporary assumption of new roles by participants. this .new role of :

planner makes it possible. W have free'exchange of ideas and information, and

makes p2ssible the development of ideas from tentative, unfinished forth to

tested' proposals. If the top administrators. of the organization do not share inV 4

this procesp with its accompanying norms,.a serious dilemma is created. Ifthe plannerstake tentative, unfinished idgas to the-top administrators, these

...

$

,

$.

.. .

e

i

.. .r 1.'. .

.....,

-36-,

e - ,%.

c

persons may kill the ideas, before they are fully developed. ; This is because

the top administrators -are operating in their usual organizational tolemith its '

norms which are yen; different.from those within the special collateral organ- :

ization. If plans are not taken to the top administrators, however, they have

no ownership of the final products. As far as they-are concerned, those Pro-.. . .

ducts are the same as the workof an outside study commission or consulting

firm, even though the work was done by persons from inside-the organization.

and the community, and indeed, by many of their subordinate administrators.

Pr4ssures of time are alwayi present which may be.ilsed.,' along with many other

reasons, for not becoming involved with the-proposals, either during or aft&

the*Planning-procees.

. in the case of Project Redesign, a strowoommitmenthas been made

by, the superintendent. and his top administrative staff to follow through with con7,

sideration of the Jong-range plan in -cooperation with the board of education,. e .

This, of Odurse, is crucial to any evaluation of Project. Redesign.

One. of 7.nnd's criteria for a collateral organization is that the outputs of

the collateral organilafion become inputs to' he formal'organizationit.

fi Ati the preceding discussion shows, at the central policy level, this ex-

change is happening, although with some difficulty. .It is very important to add,

however, that outputs of Project Redeign became inputs to the achobl system

at many levels. other tkan at' the top;. and even at the,top,output of the Project ..

has been. used in many ways other than for official ,decisions-on Project-Re 7,: 0. ..

design goals. 4 ' % 41).-

. t Theft are several instanced of this. Work 'conducted in Project -Rede-

sign in the-area of early adolescent education hecame basic study' material for'et ,

pre-school in-setviceteacheryorkshops,- and bar the work of schdol level.'

committees 'developing plans for major program shifts in the junior high s.choold.,

The concept of the "middle school",4while not new In education, was new to this

District prior to Project Redesign. Alt presentythe old junior high schools are

charged to develop "middle school" programs and the term "junior high .school"

has been dropped. d. ,a8

1

4

.

.

..

.

1

O

I

;

s

-37=f

A study b teacher-learner relationships 'conducted by a Project Re- r

design.planning team was used for in-service training-fn twp secondary schppls.

The concept of the altt-mative elementary sphocA-has been deepened and.clari-

fied by the elaborate worksof a.Project Redesign team working in that area, and'

many requests are receiitclIor the Output of this team. The District has adopted

an official policy permitting the development of officiallrldesignited alternative

elementary schools. 'Sections of-Project Iteciesign studies regularly turn up in

proposals and plans by ichooli awl groupi around the District. Board members4.

quote these !materials and a number of teachers have used them ClatyMOOMS:

A total of ore than 30 reports and studies were ,completedby Project Redesign

teams, in ddition to the lOng-range plan itself: The Project operated as a kind

of free p ss within the system.

T full effect- of This activity is elusive and difficult to. analyze. In some'

cases, it' robably spurred activity which might otherwise licit-have happened.

The full ccount of the use of the output of hvollateral organization ;Project

Redesi by-the formal organization (the District) must await developmerits over

months'. ,'the next ix onths*._ .

.

final issue of Project Redesign as a collateral organization is the in-

volvemcint of the community within the Project. ,The collateral organization model "'. .- ..,

is not ai.community involvement model. It is a.problem-solving technique within -7

organizations with potential Uses, partiJularlywith major, ill-defined, long-range

problems for which broader expertise, free information flow:, and ott reful nurtur-

ing of possible solutions are needed. Schools, however, 'are Intimately bound up ..

with the 'communities they serve.! To address such "constitutional" issues With-,

out involvement of the client community is probably unwise. (For an.excellent,

theoretical discussion of-the relationship between schools and communities whichr

is highly relevant to this discussion, see Jolin'W. Meyer and Brian Rowan, .!'..Notes

on the Structure of Educational Organizations: Reyised Versicsr.) Nevertheless,

the collateral organization perspective does not necesSailly. call forormal own-,

munity representation by a delegate system, nor wholesale cc mmmfty involvement.,

.1,

39,:021

r.

48-

,

The _purpose is to find. solutions. to problems, .and' bringing in the'dommunityt. . -

is done to accomplish thii purpose, not to build a political baSe for decision-'. . -

*11 making -or for other reasons. Those resign¢ are important from other point's,,.

of vievl, 'but from the collater*organ' ization standpoint specifically, the col-

literal organization should roe set up with the. best persons available to :Work,

on problems.

s;

O

'participants in 'Projeckftedesign, self-selected through ap open-volim-

terry process, did Ibring a greitt, variety of skills and expertise into the Project.

t It is dopbtfulthat the same persOnswould have beenpreseit if a system of elec-

Lion or appointment had been used. .

An.appointive system Might haveproducedeventreaterpertise. HoW-.

ever, this unusual- open ,system produced a group of persons who fit the needs of

the collateral organization very well. They were willing to addresp theinselves

to the difficult task of planning. They were notesponsible to specific constituT

enctes-which would control their work in the Project. They took very, seriously..the need4o be in touch with the broader commttnity in the course 'of the work..

The broader community did not express ratibh interest *the planning pro-,

teas while it was in progress. Attempts wefe Made to keeplhe community inr1.

formed. Open houses were held at intervals in the Pritjectoftices but they at-

; tractedrilfr about '10.visitors-each day. .4"i ds .assessment survey of the,

munity in mid-prOject.(March, 19,75)bshows that 48 percent of the respondents

thought they knew "some" or- "a great deal" about the Project. Thirty-eight per-.

cent of the respondents believed that the Proct had had "positive" or "very

'positive" effects on the District, but 49. percent had no opinion. When the Plan

was presented to the Board of Education, approximately lib persons were in at-

tendance. Later,. two publid hearings wereheld on :We 'ith very low1,

'attendance (20 persons and $ persons): Written nesponses by. the general public

to .the plan totaled about thirty-five: The written responses included formal

statements (generally supportive) from the League- of Women-Vote-re and two

local educational groups' The teacher organizations responded Only

." 40-1

I

.

1

.1

.

..

-39-e

t

a

to portions of the plan in a limited manner. This ifurthir evidence of the

non-controversial, non-divisive outcomes of the .process It also Illustrates

the (act that the collateral organization concept is feasible, even given the

needio involve the community. Schooladministrators have greater flexibility

in types of community involvement than Is usually utilized:thrOugh standard ad-

iisory eonrulttees and.other devices. ,,,. 0 iit must be pointed out that-Project Redesign was not designed with the

concept of the collateral organization in mind. Instead, as 'the Project develL.

opeci; it took on features which make it poisible to examine the Project 'as an.

exan1ple of the use of the collateral organization for planning purposes in schools. N

. In .many respects, Project Redesign did operate as a collateral oiganiza-.

Hon. In the uncertain world of participatory processes. and planning processes. : .

in schools, there is nb surplus of workable" concepts. I To the extent. to which

Projectitedesign did" operat, as a Collateral organizaticin, we are encouraged_ . i

< `' I

about the usefulness of this type Of. temporary organization for planning purpose:4. ,

with broad participation, new norms, and new roles. The fuller application of.

the concept in a manner which would involve the superintendent and his immedi-) /

A

ate staff in The process must await another field trial I:moth-district..ersrcil i. .

A collateral organization does not need to be as elaborate and tim/

.consuinhig as it was in this case. The concept is an advance over the ino

- 'passiye advisory committee so popular in schools. Advisory ,committee are

believed to operate, for the most part, under different norms and expe/tations, . i

i . 'I

I

than those in/ended for a,dollateral organization.A c 4

SUMMARIZ INGr COMMENTS, 4

,

This paper has examined certain a spects of this field experiment in par-. .,

ticipatory educational planning Some general summary comments may now be .. ..

made: . .', /F ,

Clearly, some of the greatest benefits of the Projec he school, dis-

trict derived from having community and staff members participa in the task $. . i.

/ . , I,

,. - . t

f.

a1W

! ., V I.

o. 41

.

of planning. The process of the Project was very useful to participants antc

the District. The degree of satisfaction among the volunteer planners was high.

Their satisfaction was not as clearly related.to the design ot planning propoials

as to the learning and process-experiences-afforded by the planning teams, The

District superintendent; top-leiel administrators; and board members. were al-

most Unanimous in expressing a great deal of pleasure with the number find the

quality of participants. They, felt that the Project had caused community members

to understand the system better and, more importantly, that the-Project had caused

the District to identify a pool of cornpetent.and.CoMmitted individuals. Many of

te them were pleased,with. the sustained level or.participation that characterined,the

:participatory planning. process. The participatory process had positive results

for the DiStrict. That is an important finding-in its own right.

Insofar as the Project's major product is concerned (the long-range plan);

administrators and board members alike were critical of its lack of articulation,'

its varying levels ofspecificity, andgerceived limited. originality. When asked

to state Which operational goals had made or would make an impact on the Dis- '

trict's policy decisions, these persons werequick to point out that many of the.

Suggested changes were air4ady being implemented or would have been scheduled. .

totake place even in-the ftbsence of, Project Redesign, Sdnie. subsequent decisions

of the board that bore alose relationship to operational, goals inthe long-range

plan; such as ,creation of a, Department of Research and Evaluation, were not

attributed by some to the long-range plan, but to ongoing administrative changes'.

Difficulties were experienced in establishing a succedsfulintertice be-

tween long-range planning and day-to-day problem-solving. Formal liaison agents

between the planning operation and the formal organization may be a necessary but

not a sufficient condition for successful interaction,

if

Some outcomes of the Project whicit`were not necessarily planned were

generally beneficial. Early reborts,developed by dataIgathering task forces did

not make a significant impact on the planning process. One group cannot success-

fully develop dati which will.be used banother group Without intensive collabora-

tion between the groups.. HOWeyer; these early reportwere widely read within.

.42

d

. -41-

,/the fichool community and caused Project Redesign to be !mown as a place,

where useful and-recent information could be obtained. .. 4* t. 4The operational-goals that were, finally.proposed Were judged by many-

not to be highly innovative. or controversial, They provided substantial support, I 1 s

'to programs and directions that were undertaken by other means within the. ..

District, however. In some cases,rit is quite difficult to decide whether the

proposals supported administrative decisions or whether administrati ve-deci-

sions moved along to preclude being told what to do 'ETA document that derived,

to a large extent, from parents' and teachers' recommendations. Anroutside ob-.

server might find that the proposals are quite innovative and quite controversial,

but after discussions within this District over a three-year period,, resulting$

from Project Redesign, they seem quite ordinary to persons here. Theyetrongly

resemble proposals contained in the California proposals for reform of iinter-

, mediate-and secondary education statewide. ' ......"'0. . .

Some of the reports developed by the planning Wain shad a direct impact

on some schools, administrators, and teachers in the District. In some cases,.

survey results and proposals in the long-range plan were used by principals and

their staffs. in shaping policies athe school level. In other cases, reports fromde

the.plrning teams were used as-the basis for in- service training activities.

I The most important test of the effectiveness of the Project, from the'

point view of being an exercise in long -range planning, wiii be whether the

recommendations make a long -range measurable impact on the school district.

At this point in our research, such an appraisal is not postible. All we carp sayc' 1 , ,

is that there is a, willingness On the part of the board to study ways to implement

the recommendations and some participants have indicatedthat they will pressure,.

. board members into action.-

$

I

.. . , 143

-42-

I.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Max G. , "Hierarchical impediments to Innovation in Educational Or-ganizations", in Fred. D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni,Organization and Human Behavior, New York: McGraw-Hill1969.

Burns, T. B, , and G. M. Stalker,. The Management of Innovation. London: Allyn*and Babon, 1971.

Carter, Richard F. , Yoter and Their Schools. Co-operative Repott No. 308,,Institute for Communications Research, Stanford University,July 30, 1960.

Cohen, Michael D. and James G. March, Leadership and Ambiguity: The Amer-ican College President._ New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

Goldman, Samuel and William. J.. Moynihan, Develaoing'a Conceptual Framework'for Viewing Models of Educational Planning. Final Report to theNational Center for. EducationaleResearch'end.Develop'ment, Wash -'ingt on, D. C. , June 1974.

Graham, Grace, The Public Schools in the American Community, New 'Rork:Harper and Row, 1963.

Hardy,-James M., Corporate Planning for Nonprofit Organizations. New York:Association Press,. 1972-:

Johnson, Rudolph, The Relationship between Teacher Collaboration and Decision-, 'Making iiElementary Schools', Stkinford, California; Stanford .

Center for Research and Developinent in Teaching, 1976. Tech-. nical Report No. 48.

Mansbridge, Jane , "Time, Emotion, and Inequality: Three Problems of Parti-cipatory Groups. " Journal of Applied Behavioral Icience. Vol. 9,Nos. 2-3, 1973, pp. 61-368: I 4

Marci James D. , and Herbert Simon, Organizations. New Yorkr John Wiley, 1958.

,Meyer, John W. , and'Brian Rowan; "Notes on the Structure Of Educational Or- ,ganizations: Revised Version." A paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco,California, August/ 1975.

44

a

We Zand, Dale, "Collateral Organization: A New Change Strategy." Journal of Anplied Behavioral Science,' Vol. 19, No. 1, 1974, pp: 63-89.

-43-

Minir, David, Educational DecisionMaking_in-Suburban Commanities, Evanson,Illinois: Northwestern University Prase, 1966.

Sarason, Seymour B., The Culture of the School and, the PrqbAgmit Change.Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971.

Stevens, Leonard B. , ""The Paradox of School Reform." Phi Delta Kaanant Febru-- ary 1976, Vol. 57, No. 9; pp. 371-374.

Stromquist, Nally P. , "Antecedent and Concizrrent Conditions of Participation:The Case of Paiticipatory Planning." Unpublished Ph. D. Disserta-tion, Stanford University, 1975.

Tannenbaum, Arnold S.., Control in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.

It

Sr

.4

45 )